John Cowan wrote: > Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit: > > > As for the GPL, where does it say that you can't distribute source via a > > website? As I read it, you must merely distribute source code "on a > > medium customarily used for software interchange." I now get almost all > > of my software, including proprietary programs, through downloads. > > See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributeWithSourceOnInternet > et seqq. >
To be clear, that Q&A covers the case when you initially distributed binaries only. The relevant part is GPL section 3. If you satisfy 3a, (distribute both binaries and source from a web site) then the GPL does not require satisfying 3b (distribute on a medium customarily used...) Further in the GPL, it states it plainly: If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code. The GPL is clear and fair on this point. You are obligated to provide source code to those who received a binary version from you. The Q Public license 1.0 (QPL), for exmaple, says something different. QPL 4 b says you must give source code to "all recipients of a binary", "without any charges beyond the costs of data transfer" (which precludes a profit.) I think that is unfair. Consider that I can decided to sell sources only at $50 profit. Company B takes my sources, distributes executables, and then goes out of business. Company C, who received binaries from B, now can come to me and demand sources without profit. That's not fair, and I don't see how it became OSI approved. Forrest. License analyser and compatibility checker: http://www.mibsoftware.com/librock/lidesc/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
